Recent discovery of the relationship between the location of the North American Jet Stream and extreme weather is a breakthrough in the understanding of solar forced climate change.

Five episodes of extreme weather over a period of 282 years deduced from tree ring data show meandering of the North Atlantic Jet stream. It is fair to say that the summers of 2017 and 2018 qualify as a sixth event because of world-wide extreme weather in the northern hemisphere and also globally, resulting in flooding, wildfires and drought on every temperate continent. The monsoon has truly gone global.

The tree ring data is the only time series data available that determines the position of a jet stream. Moreover, tree ring extremes correspond to weak portions of the solar minimum of the sunspot cycle, a cycle that is a proxy for the magnetic shield of the sun. The so-called ‘Hunger Stones’ also mark notorious years of extreme drought in Central Europe. The emergence of the Hunger Stones and the tree ring data independently support each other and support a solar cycle climate hypothesis.

These extreme weather events correspond (75%) to years of sunspot minima. Therefore, it is likely the extreme weather is a function of the solar cycle. Solar forcing is an important factor in causing extreme weather. It follows that the sun controls Earth’s climate.

Introduction

The North Atlantic jet stream currently wanders northward and southward as it meanders around the globe. Tight bends in the flow are called Atmospheric Rossby Waves after an oceanographer who recognised them in the ocean currents (Rossby, 1939). The recent emergence of a ‘Polar Vortex’ in North American weather forecasts is an Atmospheric Rossby wave in the jet stream that brings Arctic air deep into the North America (Figure 3). The Rossby wave also carries warmer air north between Polar vortices. As long as the wave moves from west to east in the Prevailing Westerlies, the weather created is transitory.

If a Rossby wave, however, becomes a fixed standing wave, it will result in extreme surface weather. This effect applies globally as the jet streams circle the earth in the thrall of the coriolis affect. When a Rossby Wave becomes a standing wave, a cold front can behave like a stuck lawn sprinkler and produce unusually heavy rain overwhelming equilibrium systems causing flooding; it can cause drouth[1] in its wake. In summer, thunderstorms commonly ignite wild fires in the lee dry areas. Apparently, when the Jet Stream achieves a stable standing wave it can create havoc.

Meandering Rossby wave anomalies in the Atlantic jet stream track began to appear in the middle 1990s (Francis and Vavrus, 2015). Each succeeding sunspot peak since 1980 cycle 21 peak has been smaller (Fig.4). Cycle 24 just ending is the weakest in 110 years, since Cycle 14 (1902-1913); toward the end of Cycle 14, Niagara Falls froze over and people walked across Horseshoe Falls (Figure 2), and there was significant media fear of the next ice age.

Fig 4: The last three solar cycles have been smaller than cycle 21 which peaked in 1980. All three are noticeably bimodal.

Extreme weather at differing latitudes was reported by Trouet et al. (2018) for five years (Table 1). They teased out the connection to extreme weather and the latitude of the North Atlantic Jet stream using the maximum latewood density records of tree rings in August over the period from 1725 to 2007. It may be inferred that the summer of 2018 qualifies as a year of extreme global weather also because of the wildfires and flooding on a global basis. The entire period from 2016 to 2018 qualifies as extreme weather for North America (Manns, 2016).

British and northeastern European weather for these years defined by Trouet (et al. op. cit.) are opposed. When one region is cold and wet the other is typically hot and dry on a proverbial seesaw. This combined with the latitude data imply the existence of a standing Atmospheric Rossby Wave in August of those years separating and governing Britain and northeastern Europe areas and their extreme weather.

Results

Table 1: Five Years held to represent extreme weather as delineated by August tree rings over a period of 282 years (Trouet, et al., op. cit.). Eighteen (18) years inscribed on Hunger Stones document low water on the Elbe River at Decin, Czech Republic and four years from Dresden Germany. The years 1417 and 1616 inscribed on two of the the Hunger Stones predate the reliably recorded solar cycle and thus are not included; 1893, 1899, 2003, and 2015 are from a Dresden, Germany, Hunger Stone.

Tree Rings

1782

1799

1912

1976

2007

Hunger Stones

1716

1842

1911

1746

1847

1921

1790

1868

1930

1800

1892

1934

1810

1893

2003

1811

1899

2015

Additional support to tree ring analysis has become available in the ‘Hunger Stones’ of central Europe. Due to dry weather the water level in the Elbe River has dropped, revealing boulders that were once used to record low water levels. More than a dozen Hunger Stones have been found in and near the town of Decin, Czech Republic, along the banks of the Elbe River. One Hunger Stone near Dresden has four years scribed. The earliest year currently visible is 1616, but the oldest year cited is 1417[2]. The name ‘Hunger Stone’ is self explanatory. Table 1 lists 18 years of extreme weather in central Europe as chiseled on Hunger Stones and 5 years represented by tree rings.

This paper compares the years of weather extremes to the solar cycle. Sunspot cycles have been studied since sunspots were discovered by Thomas Harriot (1610), Johannes Fabricius (1611), Christophe Scheiner (1611), and Galileo Galilei (Brody, 2002).

The solar cycle has been tested against economic cycles, agricultural cycles, and numerous other cycles in nature (Brody, op. cit.). This paper compares the years of weather extremes compared to adjusted solar record from the Royal Observatory of Belgium. Of the combined extreme dates, 75% correspond either perfectly or reasonably well with solar minima of the sunspot cycle.

Figure 5: Arrows point out the years of extreme weather mostly at or near the solar minima delineated in August tree rings from 1725 to 2007 and scribed into the emergent ‘Hunger Stones’ along the Elbe River. 18 out of 24 (75 %) extreme weather years occur in weak solar minima. One arrow marks the current year, 2018.

Extreme weather is clustered around Solar cycle 5 (April 1798 to August 1810), and, again, bracket Solar cycle 14 (January 1902 to July 1913) and not surprisingly, Cycle 16 (1920 to 1935) and there is a last cluster around recently ended cycle 24. All were weak, similar to cycle 24 which just ended.

It can also be observed that extreme weather may follow decreases in amplitude over two or more weakening declining cycles. From Figure 4, one would expect a record of extreme weather on or about 1755. The following are records from 1755-1758 reported in the Booty Meteorological Information Source housed at the British Library.

1755, 1756 & 1758 All wet summers in the London area. More generally, April of 1756 was notably wet by the EWP series: amongst the top 3 such-named months. (See also 1782 and 1818).

1756 (May) May 1756 was notably cold. With a CET value of 9.1deg C, this placed it just outside the ‘top-10’ or so coldest Mays in that long series, with an ‘all-series’ anomaly of over -2C.

1756, 6th May: Almost every day for a fortnight there has either been snow (large flakes) or large hailstones, and excessively cold. (as reported in the Journals of Ralph Jackson/Newcastle upon Tyne).

Figure 8: The years 1911 and 1930 are cut in this stone (near Decin, Czech Republic).

Figure 9: The years 1893, 1899, 2003, and 2015 are inscribed on this stone (near Dresden, Germany)

It is not sufficient to show a correlation between any two items of interest to suggest a connection. After all, the alleged connection between nicotine and lung cancer is accepted but has never been proven; neither has the connection between carbon dioxide and global warming. Each is an hypothesis waiting for experimental support. There are solid scientific reasons we have seen no experimental support. From the time of Arrhenius (1896, 1906) to NASA, it has been impossible to resolve the relative effect of carbon dioxide and water vapour. The subject matter is complex and to isolate a repeatable test is not possible, or experiments were performed but failed to support the hypothesis and were never reported. The latter possibility would never be revealed.Discussion

For a sun – climate connection there are several lines of evidence supporting an hypothesis that the sun is fundamentally responsible for climate change – both warming and cooling. Firstly, Friss-Christensen and Lassen (1991) estimated a 95% correlation between the temperature trends of Earth for the northern hemisphere temperature anomalies between 1861 and 1989 (128 years). They plotted anomalous temperatures against the frequency of the sunspot cycle. When the peak frequency (spacing) was close together, the northern hemisphere warmed; when the peak frequency was spread, the northern hemisphere cooled. The peak frequency method trumped many early sunspot cycle studies which used the sunspot number. Frequency capitalizes on the trend of several 11+ year cycles in a row; perhaps 33 to 45 years for a trend to build in the climate that otherwise went unnoticed because of the human research lifespan. But, correlation is not causation.

The cloud theory of Svensmark (Svensmark, et al., 2006), however, is a predictive supported theory that states more clouds are likely to form during solar minima than any other time. Clouds are nucleated by cosmic radiation from deep space normally blocked by the sun’s magnetic shield. When the shields are down, in a solar minimum, it rains or snows more than when the sun’s magnetic shield is in place. Moreover, Earth’s albedo from snow reflects Sun’s rays back to space.

The same research group, accordingly, at the Technical University of Denmark built a 7 m3 cloud chamber in the basement of their lab in Copenhagen. The objective was to simulate the atmosphere and test for cloud nuclei. The reaction was nearly instantaneous; visible cloud nuclei droplets formed in a matter of seconds (Svensmark, op. sit.). The experiment was duplicated later in the Large Hadron Collider and results repeated yet again in a high altitude vacuum chamber. Hadron gave the directive that the experiment could be published but not the conclusions.

Standing waves of the Jet Stream are clearly responsible for extreme weather. Why the jet stream achieves a stable standing wave is a question beyond this report. I will suggest a hypothesis. The atmosphere shrinks during solar minima. It seems possible that some resonance might exist between the volume of the atmosphere and the constriction of the jet streams. The Rossby waves began to show up in the 1980s (Trouet et al., op. cit.). During the last solar minimum between 2007 and 2009, NASA scientists noticed anomalous shrinkage more than anticipated in the thermosphere, a thick hot layer of atmosphere where satellites orbit. The jet streams, however, are thousands of metres lower, 9,000 – 16,000 m elevation in the atmosphere and well below the thermosphere. The relationship requires further research.

In 2012, it was reported by NASA that global average cloud height had declined by roughly one percent over the decade, decreasing by around 30 to 40 metres. This was mostly the result of fewer clouds forming at the highest altitudes. If these are evidence of a cooler shrinking atmosphere, and it continues to shrink, how will the jet streams behave? NASA scientists have assumed but not proven that carbon dioxide is responsible for the unexplained behaviour. They also concur that water vapour is a very powerful greenhouse gas.

The Seif dunes of the Sahara might be a clue, up to 100 km long and 90 metres high, Seif dunes are far out of equilibrium with modern Sahara wind. Do Seif dunes represent a time during the Ice Ages when very high winds blew for a long time as the Earth’s winds were compressed toward the equator? Were these the jet streams of the deeper past? Were jet streams closer to the ground and longer lasting?

Further objective examination of historical weather records and further objective examination from the tree ring record is required.

Conclusions

Extreme weather events, mostly drought are considered, but floods as well, correspond to solar minima in more than 75% (18 out of 24 of the cases known).

Current concentrations of carbon dioxide cannot be invoked for extreme weather in the historical past.

The sun controls the climate of the Earth.

During summer it is inevitable that lightning storms ignite fires and produce heavy rain. The intensity of what we have come to call extreme weather is magnified by standing Rossby waves.

Sunspot research tends to emphasize sunspot peaks and sunspot numbers; more may be gained by evaluating trough events and peak and trough frequencies.

Manns, F.T., 2017: It’s not the heat; it’s the humidity. Unpublished essay on the solar cycle trend based upon peak frequencies of both peaks and troughs. Available from the author.

Rossby, C.-G., 1939: Relation between variations in the intensity of the zonal circulation of the atmosphere and the displacements of the semi-permanent centers of action. Journal of Marine Research. 2: 38. doi:10.1357/002224039806649023.

It’s 3 or 4 years since I asked the UK Met Office what they knew about the relationship between UK weather and the jet stream position. I specifically asked if there was any correlation between that and unusual weather conditions, be that hot, cold wet etc. I was told this was something they were beginning to look at.

I don’t understand that reply. The relation between the jet stream and weather is extremely well known. It is in the physics of the models. I have been doing weather forecasting for over 30 years. The jet stream is a main tool we use to forecast the weather. They must have meant something else by “beginning to look at it”.

“I am thick and I am thin. I am extremely hot, yet I cannot burn your. I cannot be heard, yet I am all around you. What am I?

What you are is enthalpy, the total energy of the system including kinetic, radiative, and potential. Energy is a symmetry, a conserved quantity according to the first law of thermodynamics. You can think of symmetries and conserved quantities as equations with instant and infinite equilibrium. It doesn’t matter the space between the molecules. It doesn’t matter that humans would freeze in the thermosphere. It remains “hot”, and the energy remains very real, because everything is moving very, very fast.

“It is fair to say that the summers of 2017 and 2018 qualify as a sixth event because of world-wide extreme weather in the northern hemisphere and also globally, resulting in flooding, wildfires and drought on every temperate continent. The monsoon has truly gone global.”

No!
It is not “fair” to say so, it is a gross assumption.

Recent wildfires are the result of man’s inadequate responses to plant growth. Nor are the fires, extreme, even then.

Flooding is not unusual; whether tracked globally or regionally.

What drought?

Forever droughts were declared as few as three-five years ago have been broken.
Droughts ended, fear and mongering simply switched locations and occurrences.
Low rainfall in some areas for two years may constitute drought conditions; they do not constitute drought as evidenced in many locations historically!

Hunger stones appear to be real. They are merely large, presumably immovable, boulders embedded in a river bed. When low flow rates last exposed these stones, carvings recorded the drought and crop conditions which coincided with the low flow. However, no cause for the low flow was ever established other than lack of precipitation, which in the 1700’s was the most probable cause. But, land use has changed and water courses change as water usage places an increasing burden on water availability and flow. These marker stones are interesting, but their reappearance may be for different reasons and do not necessarily portend imminent crop failures due to drought.

The stones may be real. Whether the dates represent “hunger” is total speculation. Whether the inscriptions are genuine is also unexamined. Whether they are in any way an objective or representative record is not even questioned.

So between scavenging for scraps of food for the family and staving to death, Someone decided to expend a significant effort to cave a date into a stone. Miraculously, 200 years later some other poor unfortunate soul found the same stone and said “dang, the water has not been this low for 200 years, I’d better ensure proper record keeping before I die” and wasted his last breathe chipping away at the stone.

Your argument is self-defeating. I suggest you stand on your head with a hammer and chisel with your buddies holding you by the boots while you take your superstition seriously. Hunger stones are a real time series. marked independently by frightened people. Do you suggest they were carved underwater? Future validity is questionable because the Soviets built a dam on a tributary of the Elbe in 1926 (The Smithsonian).

Extreme weather happens every year. 2018 is no different, and as far as I see, there has been no really extreme weather in the northern hemisphere.

I know Britain was complaining about the heat during the summer, but how long did that last, a matter of of a month or two. It’s what happens when a high-pressure system sits on top of an area for a long time. This summer it was Britain. But a few months of hot summer weather is different from a few years, or a decade of extreme hot weather (as occurred in the U.S. in the 1930’s). That’s what is real extreame weather.

To be extreme, unusual weather, it has to last at a minimum for many months or years. A couple of months of hot weather under a stalled high-pressure system is not unprecedented.

The question to answer, as stated in this article, is why does the normal west-to-east movement of the jet stream stop and allow a high-pressure system to hover over an area for an exteneded time?

This one falls flat to my mind because Solar Minima are not overnight phenomena – the sun gradually clears its acne then it regrows.

That being the case, there should be many (more) instances of 2, 3 or more *consecutive* years marked as ‘Hunger Years’
Hunger stones are recording weather events – not climate.
If food plants failed in the poor weather, so the trees would suffer = perfectly circular logic.
No. Not buying

Peta,
“…there should be many (more) instances of 2, 3 or more *consecutive* years marked as ‘Hunger Years’

A fair complaint. However, to be the Devil’s Advocate, those dates may represent when the stones were first exposed during a period of time when the river was getting lower. This appears to be ‘volunteer’ work, rather than something required by law. So, how do we ascribe motive and timing to someone going to the trouble to inscribe a date?

“Yup”, but prolonged weather events …… measured in/by many months to several years. A prolonged period of extremely low rainfall occurring in the “headwaters” of the Elbe River watershed. Or maybe extreme cold summertime temperatures that negated Summertime snowmelt. To wit:

Article quote:
“Eighteen (18) years inscribed on Hunger Stones document low water on the Elbe River at Decin, Czech Republic.”

Wikii quote:

“Děčín is located in northwestern Bohemia, Czech Republic, at the confluence of the rivers Elbe and Ploučnice. The Elbe is one of the major rivers of Central Europe. It rises in the Krkonoše Mountains of the northern Czech Republic..”

Yes but as they say it’s a lot like climate research and plucking out CO2-
“There are an estimated 7,000 compounds in cigarette smoke including at least 60 known carcinogens.”
Pretty hard to parse nicotine carcinogenic effects out of that lot but we might know more with long term studies of vaping nicotine. Sound familiar?

Nevertheless it seems fairly ‘quaint’ now that lots of folks believed a habit that was really a concentrated form of air pollution was going to end well even if again it would be difficult to parse out smoking ill effects from that of general air pollution-https://www.cancer.org/latest-news/world-health-organization-outdoor-air-pollution-causes-cancer.html
I’ll just hold the air pollution and those 6999 other compounds in tobacco smoke constant while I test the carcinogenic effects of the nicotine. Yeah riiiiight perfessor!

The main error with that statement is that it is not “nicotine” that is supposed to cause cancer but tobacco smoke. It seems that the author used the word nicotine to sound more learned than just saying smoking.

IMO this whole article is so ridiculous and unscientific , it has to be some kind of spoof or an attempt to see who is dumb enough to promote it.

No offense, but cigarette smoke and nicotine are two separate things. Even in the ncbi article, the focus was on be a promoter, but not a cause of lung cancer. Smoking on the other hand, complete with a host of PAH known carcinogens is a sure path to lung cancer.

“Tobacco use in cancer patients is associated with increased cancer treatment failure and decreased survival. Nicotine is one of over 7,000 compounds in tobacco smoke and nicotine is the principal chemical associated with addiction.”https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3622363/

Troed, “association” is not proof of “causation”. And didn’t you know, …… cigarette smoking can be associated with beer drinking?

And good sex can be associated with cigarette smoking.

And here is what your 2014 link states:

“Nicotine is able to activate mitogenic signalling(sic) pathways………… as well as increase chemoresistance of cancer cells. However, the underlying mechanisms are not fully understood.”https://www.nature.com/articles/bjc201478

You have to understand Samuel that the weasel words “are not fully understood” is really cover for the anti-smoking establishment, now addicted to excise for all their virtue signalling and sundry empire building, to attack the harm minimisation alternative of vaping nicotine. The fact that UK Health Authority research has shown vaping to be 95% safer than smoking is driving them to make all sorts of spurious claims that it will encourage kiddies to imbibe nicotine so nicotine has to be the bad guy.

For old diehard smokers like me vaping means no smoke, fire, ash, butts, passive smoking, not smelling like an ashtray and my own sense of smell and taste returns within days of taking up vaping. I’d be saving at least $100AUD a week in the process, largely by not paying excise and you can see their horror at that. These are the same people who in the next breath will defend everything from illicit drug testing at rave/pop concerts, needle exchanges and methadone to light beer for harm minimisation but not health warnings and livers and spleens on their Grange Hermitage.

It’s the Ice and Opioids epidemic among others stoopids and if kids want to imbibe nicotine after all the lectures and warnings they’ve been given from knee high to a grasshopper, they certainly won’t be bothered investing in the research and investment required for satisfactory vaping, when they can simply get hold of some legal fags just like they can with booze. The price pushers charge for illicit drugs and all the dire warnings seems to have little impact on useage either so what’s with the allergic reaction to harm minimisation for smokers? Answer: Once you build an empire you have to protect it from new threats to the gravy train despite the 95% reduction in need and other priorities emerging.

Date published – 2002, excerpted from a National Cancer Organization website:

“The first national Great American Smokeout was held in 1977.

During the next 25 years the Smokeout was celebrated with rallies, parades, stunts, quitting information, and even “cold turkey” menu items in schools, workplaces, Main Streets, and legislative halls throughout the US.

The Great American Smokeout has helped to spotlight the dangers of tobacco use and the challenges of quitting, but more importantly, it has set the stage for the cultural revolution in tobacco control that has occurred over this period. ”

And we are now experiencing a “repeat performance”, …. only this time it is the cultural revolution in climate control.

Huh? This is just a re-post of the bad science from his last post on this, complete with the same kind of anecdotes and an appeal to the discredited Friss-Christensen and Lassen study.

In response to a direct question from the author, in that post I linked to two different scientific studies showing that the Friss-Christensen and Lassen was garbage.

Rather than deal with that, the author merely repeats his nonsensical claims as though I never posted anything.

This post is a joke, and it is damaging to the reputation of WUWT. The first time it was posted, it was a legit investigation, although an incorrect one.

But publishing the same junk again as though it were never published, without the slightest acknowledgment of the number of valid objections raised when it was published before?

Sorry, but that doesn’t do our reputation the slightest bit of good. Science advances by people pointing out errors and the author taking note of them. He has not taken note of any his errors. He should not be given the platform again until he does so.

Willis
I am sure that I told you before that many people have found relationships with the sun’s behaviour and what is happening with the weather on earth,
…. it goes back to the Egyptians.
Here is a report from an Egyptian, before they started with the CO2 warming nonsensehttp://virtualacademia.com/pdf/cli267_293.pdf

note especially Tables II and III

which at the very least seem to confirm the 87 year Gleissberg cycle which I personnally have also identified from my own measurements on Tmin and Tmax {global]

Thanks, Henry. The Egyptian paper diagnoses a cycle from two, count’em two periods … I’m sorry, but those kind of transient “cycles” appear and disappear all the time.

In natural datasets, if you want to claim there is some kind of cycle you need at least five periods, and even then you can get fooled.

Also, your cited paper says the Gleissberg cycle is about 80 years. You say 87 years. I’ve seen claims ranging from 55 years to 105 years … say what? That’s not a cycle, that’s a shotgun. With that wide a range, you could claim anything is related to some mystical 55-year to 105-year cycle …

I confirm the 86.5 years which I determined from analyzing the data at 54 weather stations, maxims and minims, plotting the average of the various derivatives of the least square equations of the past 4.3 decades. This gives me the half cycle. The (last) half cycle is also apparent from the graph of the solar polar field strengths, namely, just by looking at the graph with your eyes, you can plot a binomial (hyperbole&parabola) from 1971 until 2014, representing the average solar polar field strengths at any given time in between.

Essentially, the GB cycle is about the amount of energy that is being allowed through the atmosphere.

It is of course not the only factor determining global T. There are more cycles…..

If you click on my name you should come directly to my final report on AGW. I don’t know how you ended up elsewhere.

Maybe you should go start your own blog. That way you can dominate the discussions the way you see fit. I will say this,,,You’re a smart guy, but you’re not as smart as you think you are. I think you owe Anthony and apology. After all, Anthony through his years of effort, provides us this platform, however good or bad you think it is.

From me to Anthony,,,I thank you. I know the sacrifices you have made personally for our benefit and I think you run this blog really well.

“My rule of thumb is, when a man starts throwing mud as you are doing, it’s a sure sign that he is out of real ammunition …”

Willis, does your above “rule of thumb” apply to this LINKED commentary?

This, IMHO, is a prime example of your “consensus science”, to wit:

“ Huh? This is just a re-post of the bad science from his last post on this, complete with the same kind of anecdotes and an appeal to the discredited Friss-Christensen and Lassen study.”

All new theories and explanations are discredited by someone, with most of said “someones” being the “peer approved” per se “EXPERTS” in a particular discipline, …. with said “experts” noninfrequently proven to be the stupid/ignorant ones concerning the “subject” in question. Plate tectonics for one. African savannah origin of Homo sapiens will eventually be discredited and replaced by a shore line/coastal origin. And the SH ocean water will eventually be given its due credit for being the atmospheric CO2 “control knob”.

Maybe you should go start your own blog. That way you can dominate the discussions the way you see fit.

“Dominate the discussions”? Say what? I have the exact same things that you have, a keyboard and a blank screen. I cannot “dominate” you into not writing or force you to write something different. You are mistaking the web for the real world, where a big guy can dominate a little guy.

But here, we’re all the same size …

As to whether I should start my own blog, my blog is here, and I invite people to join the discussion there.

Next, I see that you are a practitioner of what I call “second-hand offense”, where someone claims to be offended on behalf of a third party … for example, you claiming that I owe Anthony an apology. Anthony’s a grown man. If he thinks I owe him an apology, he’ll tell me and we can discuss it. And if he’s right, I’ll damn sure apologize to him.

You whining and clutching your pearls on his behalf, on the other hand?

Don’t make me laugh.

Finally, I note that you have not found one single thing wrong with the scientific claims that I’ve made. Instead, you take the time to complain about how oppressed you are …

Willis, there may well be papers criticizing Friis_Christensen & Lassen, but that is because they did not include a CO2 element in their model. I did, in 2008, and 10 years later I finally passed stringent peer review to have my paper published.

The paper builds on the work in the 1990’s by Friis-Christensen and Lassen, by adding a CO2 element to their model based on solar cycle lengths (SCLs). By using a linear regression model, statistical significance levels can be measured for these two effects. Using HadCRUT4 as the global temperature series, averaged over 11-year periods starting 4 years before solar cycle maximum, the CO2 variable is hugely significant, as it explains the overall upward trend, while the length of the previous cycle has a 1.3% significance level (more on this below), and this variable explains the wiggles in the graph which is Figure 1 of the paper.

The upshot of the analysis is an estimate of TCR (Transient Climate Response) of 1.93K, and of ECS (Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity) of 2.22K. Under an assumption of continuing increases of CO2 concentration by 2 parts per million each year, the expected HadCRUT4 anomaly in AD2100 is only 1.1K higher than it was during the period 1996-2006.

Allowing for the SCLs does make material (but not vast) differences:
• without them the TCR estimate would be 2.37K instead of 1.93K
• they explain 37% of the observed warming between 1980 and 2001
• without them the residual errors significantly differ from the model assumptions

The paper also considers two other types of model, one being Scafetta’s based on 20- and 60-year cycles plus a quadratic component, the other using estimates of radiative forcings from various sources such as the Sun, well mixed greenhouse gases, and aerosols. One Scafetta model actually provides by far the best fit to the HadCRUT4 data, while the best radiative model gives a very similar estimate for the Sun’s contribution to global warming between 1980 and 2001, namely 33%. That model also implies that global temperatures are much more sensitive to solar (short-wave) radiation than to greenhouse (long-wave) radiation, by a factor of nearly 3.

And now, a few words on the statistics. For “layman” readers the meaning of the 1.3% above is that if there really is no solar effect, then it was an 80 to 1 shot or so against these observations having occurred. Of course, 80 to 1 shots do sometimes happen by chance, but…

For more mathematical readers, it is worth noting that compared with a lot of climate papers the statistics are pretty rigorous, with quoted significance levels rather than mere correlation values, and distributional tests on the residuals – specifically the Durbin-Watson (DW) test, which can detect missed low frequency effects as well as true serial correlation. This paper uses exact calculations of DW significance via algorithms from my Ph.D. thesis of 40 years ago. There are still papers published which use the ancient bounds on DW significance rather than the exact values, and to help others to benefit from these calculations, I have provided ‘R’ code for them in the SI.

One reviewer suggested that in addition to quoting values for Root Mean Square Residual , F-statistics, and DW, I use the Akaike Information Criterion (AICc). In so doing I discovered an apparently novel feature, which is that while it is widely assumed that AICc is independent of and superior to an F-statistic, in the case of 1 additional regressor (= 1 degree of freedom lost) there is an approximate relationship between AICc and F. This constitutes a rule-of-thumb that if AICc favours the additional regressor then F has a tail area less than 12%.

The paper also contains one or two other “titbits”. For example, in order to allay reviewers’ concerns that natural short-term autocorrelation might persist into the 11-year bins which were chosen to match the mean solar cycle length, Appendix A conducts a study of autocorrelation. The most surprising thing to emerge is that there is a strong 18-year autocorrelation of temperatures, which one might guess corresponds to the period of precession of the Moon’s ascending node on the ecliptic.

Also, Appendix C introduces a model for lagged ocean warming in order to arrive at the difference between TCR and ECS quoted above. This difference is somewhat less than appears in IPCC documents, but it arises from the observation that between solar Cycles 14 and 23 the oceans warmed by three-quarters as much as the land, which leads to a half-life for the lag being 20 years, and ECS/TCR = 1.15. This model appears quite plausible.

Finally, though it has only a minor bearing on the results, it irked me that the solar “authorities” declared that the Cycle 22/23 minimum was at 1996.9 when that date is later than both of the observed 13-month smoothed minima at May 1996 and August 1996. So Appendix B studies the differences between mirrored values at m-x and m+x about a putative minimum month m, and uses the signs thereof to conclude that the minimum was no later than July 1996, i.e. 1996.5. This then made Cycle 23 12.4 years long instead of 12.0.

I am happy to take questions on any aspect of this paper (in evening times UK).

I did, or at least offered to write it up for that purpose, but Anthony rejected it, back in March. Apparently he showed it to some expert who made several basic errors in an attempt to refute the statistics, but called it “wiggle matching” and didn’t like it.

I was pretty disappointed, but life teaches you to expect those. It was great, at least, to finally get it published.

Richard
I agree that I hope that Anthony will reconsider this and publish the details of your analysis, especially now that it is a published paper.
However, I hope you are up to our criticism from all of us…..
{you did not reply me on what your thoughts are on the CO2 and how it warms the atmosphere – I could not find such evidence}

It is UK evening now so I have a little more time to reply. My paper is based on the premise, certainly unproven but generally following mainstream science, that the increase in global temperature since 1850 is due to CO2, but that there are wiggles in the signal which are explained by solar cycle lengths (SCLs).

It would be great if Anthony reconsidered, but it had already been published online at the time of the previous initiative by me, and various anti-solar-climate forces at WUWT probably still weigh against it.

Thanks for your interest, and I shall certainly watch out for specific criticisms here, though I feel the thread may be petering out, so there may not be much to do.

Richard
there is of course a positive correlation between CO2 and warming
like we boiled the water to remove CO2 preparing water for a standard solution:
HCO3- + heat => CO2 + OH-
[after which we had to neutralize the solution on an indicator\]
and there are giga tons of bi-carbonates dissolved in the oceans.
OTOH Cold water is a sinc for CO2.
But remember that we are looking at an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere from 0.03% to 0.04% over the past 50 years or so where as the normal water vapor concentration is about 0.48%
0,01 from 0.52% is ?
You see where am I going with this? CO2 is the wrong boogeyman!

Richard
sure the 0.48% water vapor is correct
although I am not sure if that included clouds
-could be –?
also true: burning fossil fuel also releases H2O, easily observable from a plain passing by at high altitude
…..

If I were to believe that 0.5% of the atmosphere could cause an GH effect of many degrees K (is it still 30?)

I would indeed point to more H2O as the culprit, especially looking at the spectra of H2O and looking at all the smoke that one can see physically going up in the air [powerstations/ industry, etc’]

However, I don’t believe that that theory is at all correct, probably not even a contributory factor.

Click on my name to read my report on this. There is no man made warming, there is no global warming,
I just could not find any of it where I live? How is that?

Click on my name to read my report.

0.5% in the atmosphere has no mass, especially compared to the oceans.

True.+
I observed willful manipulation of data in Gibraltar
especially minima,
which did not at all relate to the weather stations of Spain and Marokko in the neighborhood.
I must still have a report of that somewhere.
Part of climate gate?

Well, I used to use HadCRUT3, which had the advantage of reflecting temperatures where people actually live, but the powers that be discontinued that. Also, in an earlier version I had an allowance for UHI in line with Michaels & McKitrick, but I gave up trying to get that past peer review.

Unfortunately, to do good statistical analysis, one does need data. I chose a global dataset, but Solheim uses specific North European weather stations, and also gets an SCL effect.

I did, or at least offered to write it up for that purpose, but Anthony rejected it, back in March. Apparently he showed it to some expert who made several basic errors in an attempt to refute the statistics, but called it “wiggle matching” and didn’t like it.

Richard, thanks for your post. After looking at your paper, I fear I agree with Anthony. Let me list some of the issues I have with the paper:

2) Number one above is enough to disqualify your paper, but there’s more. Using a free choice of smoothing methods, along with several tunable parameters, means that indeed you are just “wiggle matching”. You say:

The principal model has just two types of explanatory variable. For Cycle n these are:

a. log2(C(n-g)/C(9) ), where C(n) is the concentration of CO2 in year Y_max for Cycle n and g is the number of Cycles for the lag between cause and effect;

b. L(n-i)-11 where L(m) is the length of Cycle m, and non-negative integers i may be used (in practice i=0,1,2).

These are combined into your final equation:

Here you have a number of tunable parameters; “g”, “i”, and “9” (in the expression C(9), 11, S, k, and bi.

Given the following, I can match almost anything:

• Free choice of smoothing filter length and filter values

• Seven additional free tunable parameters

• Free choice of equation.

With that many selectable and tunable parameters, the only surprising result would be if you could NOT match the temperature … so yes, Richard, what you are doing is simply tuning your equations and parameters to wiggle match the target data.

1) All data are smoothed to some extent. My 11-year averages are smoothings of yearly averages which are smoothings of monthly averages which are smoothings of daily averages… The question is what is the timescale of interest. To understand the seasons, we need daily averages, but to understand climate change decadal averages make sense, and since the Sun is involved 11-year averages make the most sense. I didn’t want to have to worry about the variability within a solar cycle, and none of my many peer reviewers, some more hostile than others, ever complained about that aspect.

2) There are not 7 free tunable continuous parameters. There are 5 at most: k, S, b_0, b_1, b_2, and on finding that b_0 was not significant it was discarded to leave 4. The parameter g is a discrete variable taking the values 0 and 1, and the value chosen affects only the quantitative result, not the qualitative fact of a solar effect. 11 is not a tunable parameter, it is the mean length of the solar cycle. You also need to learn about confounded variables, something I learned the hard way when I had to rewrite a portion of my 1978 thesis. So, C(9) is confounded with k, and is therefore not a separate variable. To see this, suppose I used C(8) instead. Then this would make a change of S(log2(C(8))-log2(C(9))). That change is independent of n, and can therefore be subtracted from the value of k to give exactly the same values for each M(n) as before. Therefore C(9) is an irrelevant convenience. And sum_i 11b_i is confounded with k in the same way, so the 11 is another irrelevant convenience.

Perhaps if you read the paper more carefully you will reach a better considered appraisal.

“These extreme weather events correspond (75%) to years of sunspot minima. Therefore, it is likely the extreme weather is a function of the solar cycle. Solar forcing is an important factor in causing extreme weather. It follows that the sun controls Earth’s climate.”

The above statements are heresy to the climate establishment. Will they torture and burn this climate scientist to the CAGW stake? At the minimum his funding will get cut off.

Yes the photo is posted upside down, but when you zoom in that allows you to read the text right-side up. Which leads me to conclude the inscription in both Fig. 8 and Fig. 9 were inscribed with the author laying on the rock and reaching down to the waterline.

Sun is definitely by far the most likely cause of the global temperatures natural variability, but a credible mechanism is required.
Five or six events during 24 cycles (since 1700) i.e. 5/24 is not a very convincing correlation; in my view, that the minor expansion of upper layers of atmosphere is able to so greatly change meandering of all powerful jet stream lacks convincing credibility.

I would suggest that solar activity (mainly flares and CME’s) ionizes upper levels of atmosphere particularly in the polar regions, but variability between min/max may not be determining factor.
Changes in the ionised gas flow follows changes in underlining magnetic field, the effect being strongest in polar regions, affecting both polar vortex and the polar jet stream (two should not be confused with each other).
When the period of relative good instrumental data (since 1880) is analysed there is a high degree of correlation (R^2>0.8) of the Arctic temperature to changes in the strength of the Arctic magnetic field. Link 1
Similar correlation is found for the Global temperature variability to the Earth’s MF dipole Link 2
It is important to note that in both cases correlation is negative; what does that mean?
Stronger the MF further is the ionised gas is pulled along magnetic field lines connecting two magnetic poles, i.e. the NH’s polar jet stream excursions would move further south, similarly in the SH its polar jet stream reaching further north, both causing cooler weather events in the lower latitudes and so reducing the temperatures averages.
Since the SH is manly ocean these changes are less pronounced than in the NH mainly due to the oceans heath capacity.

The polar light are the best indicator of whether the stream currents will be strong or not. Of course, the tropospheric effect appears with a delay. When the solar wind decreases, the Earth’s magnetic field enters the game.https://images.tinypic.pl/i/00971/t0szdhx7f8tw.jpg

Just to add:
Solar flare or CME usually lasts a day or two, but when the upper layers of atmosphere are strongly ionised, charge will be maintained for many months.
Occasional ‘huge electrical discharges of enormous size’ may happen in the form of Transient Luminous Events at 30 or more miles above thunderstorm clouds.
Read more here at weather.com

There is a strong relationship between polar vortex and polar jet stream.
When the charge is low the effect of earth’s field on the vortex is weak, the vortex is strong with jet stream more regular mainly restricted to high latitudes.
With high charge vortex is pulled away by the earth’s MF and eventually splits up into two with jet stream meandering to lower latitudes.
image: http://www.vukcevic.co.uk/NH.gif
movie: https://eoimages.gsfc.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/36000/36972/npole_gmao_200901-02.mov
“When the polar vortex is strong, there is a single vortex with a jet stream that is “well constrained” near the polar front. When the northern vortex weakens, it separates into two or more vortices, the strongest of which are near Baffin Island, Canada and the other over northeast Siberia.[2] The Antarctic vortex of the Southern Hemisphere is a single low pressure zone that is found near the edge of the Ross ice shelf near 160 west longitude. When the polar vortex is strong, the mid-latitude Westerlies (winds at the surface level between 30° and 60° latitude from the west) increase in strength and are persistent. When the polar vortex is weak, high pressure zones of the mid latitudes may push poleward, moving the polar vortex, jet stream, and polar front equatorward. The jet stream is seen to “buckle” and deviate south. This rapidly brings cold dry air into contact with the warm, moist air of the mid latitudes, resulting in a rapid and dramatic change of weather known as a “cold snap”.[3] “https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_vortex

Magnetic field in the Arctic regions
Although almost 90% of the observed magnetic field can be approximated by a dipole, the 10% left over, called the non-dipole field cannot be ignored. In places it can be large relative to the dipole field, thus altering noticeably the shape of the observed field. This is especially true in the vicinity of the North Magnetic Pole, with important consequences. In order to appreciate how the non-dipole part of the magnetic field distorts the overall shape of the magnetic field it is important to understand what the dipole field looks like. The three diagrams illustrate the following points.http://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/images/field/fnordipole.gif
The real magnetic field is quite different, as can be seen in the next set of three diagrams.http://www.geomag.nrcan.gc.ca/images/field/fnor.gif

Anyone leaning heavily on Svensmark isn’t understanding the proper order of solar influences.

It seems a lot of detail is left to the imagination as to how the jetstream varies with solar activity.

I agree solar cycle extremes lead to weather and climate extremes, but I have much different ways of showing how, with a systematic data-structured system of the solar cycle effect on hydrology and subsequent generation of extreme weather and climate events under different solar regimes.

Jeezus, if they are creating sand dunes they are not just “closer” they were at ground level. Jet streams occur in the STRATOSPHERE because it is stratified ! Suggesting the jet streams may have operated at ground level in the turbulent troposphere shows such ignorance of basics it is not even funny.

Seems like our “artesian geologist ” needs to get up to speed on meteorology before attempting to explain climate change.

“Suggesting the jet streams may have operated at ground level in the turbulent troposphere shows such ignorance of basics it is not even funny. ”

Greg, learn to read with comprehension …… and cease with the “pickin n’ chosin” of selected verbiage to criticize. Here, try again, see iffen you can comprehend what the author was actually saying.

“The North Atlantic jet stream currently wanders northward and southward as it meanders around the globe. Tight bends in the flow are called Atmospheric Rossby Waves …..

If a Rossby wave, however, becomes a fixed standing wave, it will result in extreme surface weather.

Do Seif dunes represent a time during the Ice Ages when very high winds blew for a long time as the Earth’s winds were compressed toward the equator? Were these the jet streams of the deeper past? Were jet streams closer to the ground and longer lasting?”

“DUH”, the author was asking if the jet stream of long ago …. created Atmospheric Rossby Waves that morphed into ….. a fixed standing wave that resulted in ….. extreme high winds as surface weather that created the Seif dunes?

It does my heart good to know there are learned people who are not afraid to “speak the truth”, to wit:

Excerpted from above article:

“It is not sufficient to show a correlation between any two items of interest to suggest a connection. After all, the alleged connection between nicotine and lung cancer is accepted but has never been proven; neither has the connection between carbon dioxide and global warming. Each is an hypothesis waiting for experimental support. ”

I simply decided I was no longer going to be forced to pay for “illegal drugs” enforcement, anti-drug programs, “free” needles, Court costs, medical costs, drug rehabilitation programs, etc., etc. …. that is now being provided “FREE” to the “drug addicts”.

And I had been inhaling “smoke” from my own cigarettes as well as lots of secondhand “smoke” from hundreds of other imbibers for the past 64 years, ….. and I was averaging 2 – 2 1/2 packs/day for the last 30 years of the aforesaid 64 years.

I have no ill effects from my 78 years of inhaling all kinds of “burning biomass” smoke, ……. but I sure as hell have a lot of health problems that are directly attributable to my RA which I became a victim of in 1996.

Professional Engineer: BS 1978 in Nuclear Engineering (reactor design, heat transfer, thermodynamics, fluid flow, nuclear physics, materials-structural-electrical-mechanical analysis), MS in Quality Assurance/Statistical Analysis-TQM-Process Analysis a few years later in 1998. Navy nuke, 40 years now in power plants and operation, construction and repair. But I prefer square dancing, round dancing, folk dances. Line dancing is too much like being back on the drill fields throwing rifles around. 8

“Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) happens when your body’s defenses – your immune system – targets your joint linings. RA affects joints on both sides of the body, such as both hands, both wrists, or both knees. This symmetry helps to set it apart from other types of arthritis. It can also affect the skin, eyes, lungs, heart, blood, or nerves.”

There is probably no relation between nicotine and lung cancer per se. Nicotine is an alkaloid found in some plants of the nightshade species. By itself it appears not to induce cancer all that much any more than any other alkaloid does. What is apparently true is that there appears to be a strong relation between the way that people administer nicotine to themselves and lung cancer. The chosen method is to inhale partially combusted leaves of the plant which contain tons of free radicals and other products that are known carcinogens. Those products are known to be associated with cancer and other nasty stuff with good reason. I suspect that you will be able to say the same about THC and cannaboids in the not so far future if folks smoke too much pot. The oils and “brownies” will probably remain risk free though. Ingesting alkaloids may or may not be desirable for a number of reasons. Lung cancer is probably not an adverse side effect of nicotine any more than it is of tomatine or caffeine though.

In order to develop cancer it may be that some kind of weakens within individual’s dna is required, it may be present at large % of population but not with everyone.
My grandfather apparently started smoking at age 14 or 15 or use to say so, and did continuously until about his late 80s when he required a surgical intervention for an unrelated complication, was told to stop smoking, he did so for couple of years then restarted and continued at somewhat lower intensity until his natural death at age of 102.
No one else in my immediate family is or was a smoker, so whatever you do don’t follow his example.

Hmm, nicotine is not the cause of cancer. There are about 4,000 chemicals in cigarette smoke. Cancer is linked to these. Some that smoke get cancer; my mother, for instance. Some do not; my father, for instance.
In any case, the quoted material is mis-directed and mis-leading.

Of the combined extreme dates, 75% correspond either perfectly or reasonably well with solar minima of the sunspot cycle.

Define ‘perfectly’, define ” reasonably”.

I read the horoscope for Torus today and 75% of what if predicted corresponded either perfectly or reasonably well with what happened to me today. ( Which means that I now “self-identify” as being born under Torus).

This is such a crock of pseudo-science that it could be tuned to support any position you may happen to want to convince yourself of.

Yep 6 / 16 “hunger years” were near a max, he trawls the rest as being “reasonably close” to minimum, without providing a mathematically clear definition of what that means. I bet a plot of deviation from minimum for all dates would show a pretty even spread. So,e before , some after; evidence for causation looks pretty screwed.

Then work out how many need to be “reasonably close” to have a statistically meaningful result on such a tine sample.

It’s good that you give claims a decent whiff over Willis, there are not enough who do that. Why is that?
Your analysis tool skills are very handy, but the reason that I like to do a manual tally is that I am learning more along the way. Like seeing exactly how much several of them are before minimum. It’s all useful additional information.

Willis is the master of statistical analysis. Where Willis and I differ is in geology not being quite as mathematical as mathematicians would like it to be. Willis’ analysis of this post is solid from a mathematical perspective. It’s just that the Earth’s climate isn’t that simple.

As a Young scientists, I presented three papers at the Symposium on Earth’s Near Space Environment, 18-21 February 1975, held at the National Phyisical Laboratory, New Delhi. They were published in Indian Journal of Radio & Space Physics, Vol. 6, March 1977, pp.44-50, 51-59 & 60-66:

The session was chaired by J. W. King [presented a review on Sun-Weather relationships]. The Scientific Committee on Solar Terrestrial Physics [SCOSTEP] of American Academy of Sciences compiled abstracts in the area of solar terrestrial physics in national and international journals. The volumes were released in 1977 inwhich in the Introduction section identified 15 papers of unusual interest. The first paper of mine is one among the 15.

I developed formulae for the estimation of Global [total] Solar radiation and net [balance] radiation at the Earth’s Surface along with sunshine hours from cloud amount. Gobal solar radiation was estimated for 20 stations and net radiation for 8 stations, the anual data series were subjected to Power spectoral analysis. The third article above presents the results of power spectral analysis. The global solar radiation and net radiation intensities showed sunspot cycle [10.5 years + or – 0.5 year]. They also showed multiple of this [21 years at some stations 42 years cycles & sub-multiple]. That means solar energy reaching the earth surface as well the net/balance following the sunspot cycle.

1) The picture of frozen Niagara Falls is of the American Falls not Horseshoe Falls.

2) Carl-Gustav Rossby was a meteorologist not an oceanographer. He did have a passing interest in the ocean only to the point of the ocean-atmosphere interface. He did some work with Woods Hole…as a meteorologist but his main study, work & recognition is in meteorology.

That the Jet Stream is heavily influenced by solar activity is increasingly well understood. Expansion and contraction of the upper levels is well established; with the result that the temperature and pressure profiles within the atmosphere are pushed and pulled – and with them the jet stream.
It must, of course, always be remembered that a sunspot does not necessarily imply a terrestrial impact, nor does the absence of spots imply the absence of incoming material. Sunspots are therefore little more than a general indicator of overall activity.
However when such influences are minimal, the principal factor becomes the “Sea/Land Differential” (warm land/cool sea and vice versa), profiles and the Jet Stream tending to lock to a fixed position related to that pattern, giving repetitive surface weather pattern responses.
Recommend: https://howtheatmosphereworks.wordpress.com/solar-activity-and-surface-climate/
and the Ap index historical analysis on the same site.

The 2003 heatwave as with heatwaves in 1976 occurred during periods of high solar wind temperature, and along with heatwaves in 1949 and 1934, all occurred at the same type of heliocentric Jovian configuration of Jupiter opposite Uranus square to Saturn. The most extreme European heatwaves of the last 800 years occurred on the configuration of Saturn opposite Neptune square to Jupiter. The inferior planets, notably Earth and Venus, then order the timing of the peak monthly temperature anomalies within the Jovian setting.
Solar wind temperature, density, and pressure:https://snag.gy/d2v3aJ.jpg

it might be relevant if you want to predict periods of droughts? Note that my finding is that we are already globally cooling.

As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapour available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become cooler and/or drier.

giving you at least 2 modern investigations that confirm the existence of the GB – and DeVries cycle,
are you also rejecting their work? Please answer me on that.

Obviously, most of you did not catch my reference to the Egyptians that I hinted at, i.e. the ancient Egyptians.[Willis thought I was pushing ‘the bible’]

The ancient Egyptians, for various OBVIOUS reasons, were notoriously watching the fall and rise of the river Nile. The details that Joseph predicts that were going to happen {explaining the dream of the Pharao] must have been because of some of his own and previously employed observers recordings of what happened to the level of the Nile. There is no way he could have known this by some miraculous ‘revelation’ although it would have looked like that by some of the casual observers, e.g. the writer of the book of Genesis.
Most likely, as part of his work in prison, he was to update the records meaning he also had access to the previous records and could sort of predict what was going to happen next.

Apparently, even Mozes was aware of the records, namely, that every 49th year or so, the Nile would be exactly at its ‘average’ level…..
ANNO 1983 William Arnold of the Cycle institute was aware of it. announcing an apparent 100 year[or so] weather cycle. But that was of course just before they started with the CO2 nonsense. He even found the connection / correlation with the position of the planets that I also found.

Eish. Now when you ask me to predict…. I can tell you exactly what is going to happen. The plains of America are due for a big drought similar to the Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939. Of course they will call it ‘climate change’ , i.e. AGW,

the stones in Europe are in fact hunger stones. 1930’s in Europe was also the time when hyper food inflation happened in Germany…

Ulric, a couple things. First, we don’t know when there was a heatwave in Europe in the 1300s.

Second, there are potentially an infinite number of astronomical time periods, from minutes to millennia. As a result, finding correlations with some specially chosen climate variable is a trivial task.

Because correlations are so easy to find and so numerous, before claiming that one or more of them is actually affecting the climate on earth, you need a plausible physical explanation for how, for example, Jupiter opposing Uranus affects surface climate variables. You need to demonstrate causation and not trivial correlation.

Here’s a drawing to clarify the difference between correlation and causation …

Without establishing causation, I fear you’re just practicing astrology … so …

What physically happens when e.g. Jupiter opposes Uranus that affects the climate?

Please don’t tell me it is the tidal force on the sun until you are prepared to tell us the range of say the Jupiterian tide on the sun. How high and low does that tide range?

“First, we don’t know when there was a heatwave in Europe in the 1300s.”

We know that there was a heatwave in Europe in 1540, and also 179 years earlier in 1361.

“Second, there are potentially an infinite number of astronomical time periods, from minutes to millennia. As a result, finding correlations with some specially chosen climate variable is a trivial task.”

Meaningless unrepeatable correlations for sure. I haven’t mentioned time periods.

Indeed they are numerous. Just take the tides as a simple example. There are no less than 31 lunar cycles of different types used to calculate the tides. Then we have nine planets, each of whose cycles has a period, amplitude, and phase. Then you get the interactions between all of those. And of course, you have to include multiples of those times, like Henry talking about about how 17 Gleissberg cycles equals one motorcycle or some damn thing. Numerous? The ineractions between all of those give you thousands of numbers to play with. And folks like you do exactly that.

Take a look at the work of Scaffeta for an example. Here is a summary of his claims about climate cycles, as I discussed here. He explains the variations in surface temperatures using fitted sinusoidal cycles of various lengths. Here are the cycles he used in a string of posts.

First Post: 20 and 60 year cycles. These were supposed to be related to some astronomical cycles which were never made clear, albeit there was much mumbling about Jupiter and Saturn.

Second Post: 9.1, 10-11, 20 and 60 year cycles. Here are the claims made for these cycles:

9.1 years : this was justified as being sort of near to a calculation of (2X+Y)/4, where X and Y are lunar precession cycles,

“10-11″ years: he never said where he got this one, or why it’s so vague.

20 years: supposedly close to an average of the sun’s barycentric velocity period.

60 years: kinda like three times the synodic period of Jupiter/Saturn. Why three times? Why not?

Third Post: 9.98, 10.9, and 11.86 year cycles. These are claimed to be

9.98 years: slightly different from a long-term average of the spring tidal period of Jupiter and Saturn.

10.9 years: may be related to a quasi 11-year solar cycle … or not.

11.86 years: Jupiter’s sidereal period.

The latest post, however, is simply unbeatable. It has no less than six different cycles, with periods of 9.1, 10.2, 21, 61, 115, and 983 years. I haven’t dared inquire too closely as to the antecedents of those choices, although I do love the “3” in the 983 year cycle. Plus there’s a mystery ingredient, of course.

Seriously, he’s adding together six different cycles. Órale, that’s a lot! Now, each of those cycles has three different parameters that totally define the cycle. These are the period (wavelength), the amplitude (size), and the phase (starting point in time) of the cycle.

This means that not only is Scafetta exercising free choice in the number of cycles that he includes (in this case six). He also has free choice over the three parameters for each cycle (period, amplitude, and phase). That gives him no less than 18 separate tunable parameters.

Just roll that around in your mouth and taste it, “eighteen tunable parameters”. Is there anything that you couldn’t hindcast given 18 different tunable parameters?

The “spring tidal period of Jupiter and Saturn”? … yes, Ulric, the possibilities are indeed “numerous” as I claimed above …

“The ineractions between all of those give you thousands of numbers to play with. And folks like you do exactly that.”

I do not. I’m not even discussing periods here, but events with a limited number of quadrupole permutations of strictly four bodies. Please pay attention. What you are talking about is endless possibilities of non correlation.

For your benefit I will expand. I checked as many examples as I have weather records against stand alone two body syzygies and quadrature events, and then on to three and four body permutations in syzygy and quadrature. This revealed the following:

Extreme hot and cold weather events regularly occur at syzygies (particularly superior conjunctions) and quadratures of the four gas giants, with greater extreme events involving configurations of 3-4 bodies. The logic of two body configurations of superior conjunctions and either quadrature, derived from consistent correlations with many centuries of weather records, is as follows.

According to these rules, the 1976 Jupiter opposite Uranus and both square to Saturn, is acting as one hot opposition, and two hot quadratures. The same configuration type occurred in the warmth of 1686 in the Maunder Minimum, and in the 1934, 1949, and 2003 heatwaves.

The hottest known European heatwaves of the last 800 years all occurred on the configuration of Saturn opposite Neptune, square to Jupiter. In 1252, 1361, 1540, 1757, and July 2006.

The apparent logic dictates that 3 body peak hot or cold events have to occur on tee-squares.

Mechanisms would likely involve interaction of the magnetic connections from the Sun to each body, with the solar equatorial quadrupole magnetic moment, which is ordered N S N S. This could account for the opposing hot and cold event results for any two given bodies in superior conjunction and then in quadrature. As for the effective polarities that are being expressed between the bodies, I haven’t a clue on that yet. Though I have both quantity and quality of observations on which to base the theory. Most investigators in this field tend to start with a postulate of the mechanism and then make no useful observations, rather like the AGW theory.

There are too many unquantified variables in this for it to carry any weight, and at very best, if every influential factor could be identified and controlled, and the record was complete, it would still be no more than an insubstantial and indirect proxy. But, as social history, it’ is interesting.

If sunspot incidence is in some way related to Earth’s climate in the context of the AGW debate (to show that recent temperature increases are due to natural variation/the sun) then the clearest way to do this would be to graph the relationship between sunspots and the temperature record – if there is one. I think I recall a piece by WE that showed there is no such relationship.

I hope you guys having an online argument aren’t going to start pulling out the charts and graphs again to show that all of you are right. The AMIRIGHT? gets kind of theatrical after a while.

I’m more interested in how the jet stream is going to affect this fall and the coming winter. The two Almanacs give different forecasts, so I’ve bought both to compare the real-time results with what they’ve both said. Also, I’m far more interested in what to stock in the freezer and the pantry, and how far ahead, than I am in silly quarrels over who is right and who isn’t.

I’ve known about Rossby waves for a long time. According to a local meteorologist, who may be retired now, there was a summer pattern and a winter pattern. The summer pattern (warm weather) was pretty flat, and the winter pattern (cold weather) was markedly different with deep waves reaching far into the north and quite far into the south. The wave pattern in the last year or so, maybe further back, seems to have been changing into the “winter pattern” carrying over into summer and staying there.

That is what should be looked at. How much it has to do with deep space radiation, changes in the planetary magnetic field strength, and the sunspot count, which has been on the fritz since 2006, is a good question because they seem to all have a relationship with each other. There’s another hurricane forming in the Atlantic – Leslie, I think. So how is THAT going to affect this winter’s weather?

Joe Bastardi’s forecasts are very good, and a pic of his winter forecast is on the site. Very cold in the east and decreasing to avg then slightly above avg toward the Pacific Northwest. Grain of salt of course, but again, he’s darn good.http://www.weatherbell.com/premium

Earth has seen some highly unusual weather patterns over the past three years, and three new studies published this year point to Arctic sea loss as a potential important driver of some of these strange weather patterns. The record loss of sea ice the Arctic in recent years may be increasing winter cold surges and snowfall in Europe and North America, says a study by a research team led by Georgia Institute of Technology scientists Jiping Liu and Judith Curry. The paper, titled “Impact of declining Arctic sea ice on winter snowfall”, was published on Feb. 27, 2012 in the online early edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. “Our study demonstrates that the decrease in Arctic sea ice area is linked to changes in the winter Northern Hemisphere atmospheric circulation, said Judith Curry, chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech, in a press release. “The circulation changes result in more frequent episodes of atmospheric blocking patterns, which lead to increased cold surges and snow over large parts of the northern continents.”

Do the hunger stones correlate with times of low sunspots? Nope. No statistically significant correlation.

As you can see, the average sunspot number in the years with hunger stones is NOT statistically different the sunspot count from all years.

I was going to do a similar analysis of the Trouet study data, which the author failed to link to … but I couldn’t figure out why the author chose those five years out of all of the years analyzed by Trouet.

Finally, someone above accused me of “dominating” the discussion. The only thing I am dominating is actual mathematical analysis of the author’s claims, which few other people seem to be interested in doing. Lots of cheering and high-fiving, lots of “It’s the sun, stupid” … very little actual mathematical analysis …

Hi Willis, There is a naturally occurring ‘crease’ in the upper atmosphere, most readily defined by the 550mb isobar, or thereabouts. As the upper atmosphere moves seasonally and expands and contracts under the influence of the solar impacts, this ‘crease’ gets pushed about (to put it simply) and the profile made steeper or more shallow. The Jet Stream tends to form in this crease and its speed is influenced by the steepness of the profile. Most deep atmosphere met charts will show the current position. Not the only thing involved – never that simple – but a principle factor.

giving you at least 2 modern investigations that confirm the existence of the GB – and DeVries cycle,
are you also rejecting their work? Please answer me on that.

Sure. The first one uses the INTCAL98 calibration record of atmospheric 14C abundance. Unfortunately, this is known to be contaminated with weather data, so it is totally unclear whether this represents solar variations, weather variations, or some combination of both.

The second one involves a “conceptual bistable model” that is supposed to relate to 17 “Gleissberg cycles” to give a 1470 year cycle that is “similar” to a Fourier analysis of proxy paleo data … say what? You actually believe this stuff?

Obviously, most of you did not catch my reference to the Egyptians that I hinted at, i.e. the ancient Egyptians.[Willis thought I was pushing ‘the bible’]

The ancient Egyptians, for various OBVIOUS reasons, were notoriously watching the fall and rise of the river Nile. The details that Joseph predicts that were going to happen {explaining the dream of the Pharao] must have been because of some of his own and previously employed observers recordings of what happened to the level of the Nile. There is no way he could have known this by some miraculous ‘revelation’ although it would have looked like that by some of the casual observers, e.g. the writer of the book of Genesis.
Most likely, as part of his work in prison, he was to update the records meaning he also had access to the previous records and could sort of predict what was going to happen next.

Apparently, even Mozes was aware of the records, namely, that every 49th year or so, the Nile would be exactly at its ‘average’ level…..
ANNO 1983 William Arnold of the Cycle institute was aware of it. announcing an apparent 100 year[or so] weather cycle. But that was of course just before they started with the CO2 nonsense. He even found the connection / correlation with the position of the planets that I also found.

I wrote about the Nile River here. Most people analyzing it use standard statistics, which is a huge mistake in datasets like the nilometer data which have a high Hurst exponent.

Next, Henry, you really should learn the math and run the analysis yourself. Otherwise, you’re at the mercy of every guy with a smooth tongue, a good story, and pretty graphice.

For example. Here is a CEEMD analysis of the nilometer data.

Note that the so-called “Gleissberg Cycle in this one is quite weak, and is at about 74 years …

Don’t like CEEMD? OK, here’s a Fourier periodogram of the same Nilometer data;

Same result. There is NOTHING at your claimed Gleissberg length of ~87 years … you see why I encourage you to roll your own?

Eish. Now when you ask me to predict…. I can tell you exactly what is going to happen. The plains of America are due for a big drought similar to the Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939. Of course they will call it ‘climate change’ , i.e. AGW,

That’s not a prediction, that’s handwaving. There is no way to tell if that comes true. We could wait 20 years and you could say, just like Paul Ehrlich says about his failed serial doomcasts, “It’s coming, just you wait!”

To be a true prediction you have to include boundaries in time, space, and the variable in question. Here’s a valid prediction, just as an example:

“Before the end of 2025, the Palmer Drought Severity Index will be more than three standard deviations above the 1950-2000 average in at least three of the following states at the same time: Nebraska, Texas, Oklahoma, Missouri, South Dakota, and North Dakota.”

It’s helpful to think of a prediction as being a bet, where on a certain day you and I can get together and see who has won.

Willis
I am not sure where your nilometer data came from {the link did not work] , but perhaps there could be contamination because of the increase in population and people putting in dams, etc.
You guessed right: I am not your maths man but I think I am not too bad in stats. In fact my diploma in Datametrics (UNISA) says ‘Cum laude”
I picked up the GB cycle from analyzing the data of maximum temperatures from one station in Alaska with reliable daily data going back to the 1940s. I was sure it was a sine wave, and the closest that correlated with mine was the 88 year cycle as quoted in the first investigation. … I went on to analyse the daily data of 54 stations, for the past 43 years, especially looking at minims, and looking at the speed of warming/cooling I came to a sine wave with wave length 86.5 years, as found in the second investigation.

Now you say: do you believe this stuff? I am saying: I measured it, and to measure is to know. So, obviously, yes, you can stand on your head, laughing at me, but you cannot change my mind about what I found.

As the temperature differential between the poles and equator grows larger due to the cooling from the top, very likely something will also change on earth. Predictably, there would be a small (?) shift of cloud formation and precipitation, more towards the equator, on average. At the equator insolation is 684 W/m2 whereas on average it is 342 W/m2. So, if there are more clouds in and around the equator, this will amplify the cooling effect due to less direct natural insolation of earth (clouds deflect a lot of radiation). Furthermore, in a cooling world there is more likely less moisture in the air, but even assuming equal amounts of water vapor available in the air, a lesser amount of clouds and precipitation will be available for spreading to higher latitudes. So, a natural consequence of global cooling is that at the higher latitudes it will become cooler and/or drier.

True enough, I cannot predict exact years or dates for droughts to occur, simply because there are too many factors, apparently influencing global T, as outlined in my final report [click on my name]

but it is sort of very coincidental to me to find that that the decimation of the bison population is now more connected with the droughts from 1845 onward rather than from human intervention, as was previously thought. Now, 1932 – 87 = ??? 1932 + 87 = ???
Remember my name.

For permission, contact us. See the About>Contact menu under the header.

All rights reserved worldwide.

Some material from contributors may contain additional copyrights of their respective company or organization.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on WUWT. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it. This notice is required by recently enacted EU GDPR rules, and since WUWT is a globally read website, we need to keep the bureaucrats off our case!
Cookie Policy